I don't see "private militias" fighting terrorists. But, fool yourself if you want.

How on Earth have you never heard of Blackwater, now Xe Services? How is it possible that you don't know about this?

I think that they work for the federal government.

Yes they do, and they are private companies. Which is exactly what you said you don't see existing.I didn't vote for them, they ran for no office, and they aren't bound by the limitations of the US Constitution.

Yes, the rise of private militaries in the US is a new thing that will inevitably lead to our destruction! </s>

Just because they're mercs doesn't mean that we're all going to be stomped under the heels of jackbooted thugs working for Walmart/Microsoft (though maybe...)/Disney. As intellectually fun as it is to let the notion of mercenaries run wild and follow it down every unlikely combination of events, the truth is much more boring, they're high-grade rentacops, retired snake eaters, not Rambo. </rant>

Of course they aren't ficitonal movie characters, they're much more dangerous than that. You can take 5 seconds to google what their actions have been, what weapons they have available to them, and exactly how many times they've been jailed for the things they've done. But that would completely prove you wrong, so it's pretty much pointless to argue with someone that is purposefully ignoring reality. If you think a musket bearer from two centuries ago is equal, I've no more time to waste talking to someone so willfully ignorant.

Even if you for some bizarre reason are OK with Obama doing this (maybe you think he is trustworthy), surely you would have to be a little concerned that all subsequent presidents will be able to do this stuff.

I did not say it was overly broad. The poster asked if he could challenge it in court, I replied that he could if it can be proven one of those four things exist. You are taking this way out of proportion and putting things into it I never said and the context was never intended to convey. Yes, you can challenge the constitutionality of something the government does is inherently, or by its nature or implementation or use, oppressive, repressive, invasive, or illegal. I'm not going to play this "show me this or that" game you want to play based upon your semantic twists and putting things into the discussion that never existed in the first place. The legal standing is one of those things actually existing.

First of all, I am that poster. It was a rhetorical question, you can't. You require standing to challenge anything in court. Those four things are not, in isolation, sufficient for standing. You need to show that you are being oppressed/repressed/invaded. I've been asking for you to show me something because our system, oddly enough, operates off of legal precedent.

Its not necessary that all four exist. Any one of those four is an abuse of government power, and that's the actual standing at its basis if it exists. I already gave examples, i'm not going to do your homework for you to provide specific wording just so you can continue an argument. Your question wasn't "rhetorical", it was specific to you. You asked the question, I gave an answer, if your aim was just to have something to argue instead then you should have shown precedent that one of those four did not exist. I don't do specific legal work for free, the only reason i'm posting here now is because I'm board and laid up from a bad auto accident. If you want to pursue such a request for your requested "examples" legal precedent and research, and want legally structured language and examples, i'll be happy to put our firm at your disposal as soon as I fully recover and am back in the office, other than that you need to do your own homework.

What? When did you ever cite anything? You never gave me a link, a citation, nothing. As it is, I can't find it myself through my own powers, so I'd be glad if you could help me out.

I agree, you need to be able to show that any of those four apply to you to file a lawsuit. PRISM's secretive nature means I can't prove any of those apply to me, even though one of those certainly applies to someone, somewhere.

I cited, well not actually cite, but presented the Obama Care, ACLU, and the EFF in a general nature.

No, PRISM's secretive nature does not mean you can't show it, you are limiting your thinking on this matter. A partial purpose of a constitutional challenge for abuse of power is to make the government show it did not abuse its power, basically if the government can not show they did not abuse its power then they abused their power. This is different from the "civil" type of lawsuit you began your argument with. The purpose of a constitutional challenge for an abuse of power at its basis is not a "prove culpability" thing so there is no distinct "burden of proof" on the accuser, its a "show was or was not abused" and the government has a responsibility to show they did not as that's the only basic defense they have.

They can't be required to prove a negative, burden is still on the named petitioner (whether that is EFF or someone the EFF is helping) to demonstrate impact on themselves for standing.

EDIT: There was a NSA wiretapping law case that was dismissed just this year by SCOTUS on that very basis, inability to demonstrate imminent impact.

It isn't proving a negative, its the government showing their actions was not an abuse of power by showing that its constitutional. Its not a "negative", its either constitutional or not and that's what SCOTUS decides. The constitution is not a negative, The SCOTUS will decide if the governments actions were within their constitutional powers or not, that's what the SCOTUS does and it does it by interpreting the constitution. If the governments arguments defense are constitution founded and the SCOTUS decides they are, based upon the SCOTUS constitution interpretation, then the government did not abuse its power. Alleged abuse of government power, although in the moral or indignation sense to some in society may be wrong, constitutionally and legally its not an abuse of power if the SCOTUS decides the governments actions are constitutional. For example, Obama Care, it was alleged it was unconstitutional due to the constitutions congress taxing powers not permitting it (alleged an illegal government action, an abuse of government power) yet the SCOTUS ruled that it was constitutional because congress had the constitutional right to tax in relation to Obama Care. There was no 'negative' to prove, the government was required to show by their argument defense that it was constitutional and the other side only had to raise the objection and show argument as to why it was not constitutional, there wasn't a burden of proof (as in physical absolute proof), it was mainly argument and deliberation and the "proof" was the weight of the arguments (which no doubt included various facts and figures, but that's argument substantiation not proof in an absolute evidence sense) based upon the constitution. You are still thinking 'civil law suit' wise, a constitutional challenge for abuse of government power is not like a civil law suit. In a constitutional challenge the SCOTUS is swayed by who has the best constitutionally based argument that fits the SCOTUS constitution interpretation.

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

In a recent months I found myself stop paying for services of US based companies unless I can ensure my own data is encrypted before it reaches US borders.

That is probably not sufficient; you want to be sure your data is encrypted in transit, to anywhere and everywhere.

Even if your chosen service provider is entirely aboveboard and cooperating in no way with US spy agencies, they have taps on many (most?) major backbones. You should assume that anything you send to anyone will be intercepted by the US, so make sure they can't use that information by encrypting it in transit.

This will not help if your service provider rolls over for the US or for Britain. Remember that, with Echelon, the US would surveil British citizens, and the Brits would surveil US citizens, and then they'd swap data. So you don't want to use providers in either country, because they can be leaned on to an extraordinary degree.

US and British servers are not safe; transit lines everywhere are not safe. Structure your online life accordingly.

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

You are still thinking traditional lawsuit. Obviously you have not read back enough to understand the context of the discussion between myself and the other person for which the discussion was intended. We are not talking about lawsuit, we are talking about constitutional challenge.

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

You are still thinking traditional lawsuit, We are not talking about lawsuit, we are talking about constitutional challenge. Its a different ball game.

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

You are still thinking traditional lawsuit, We are not talking about lawsuit, we are talking about constitutional challenge. Its a different ball game.

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

You are still thinking traditional lawsuit, We are not talking about lawsuit, we are talking about constitutional challenge. Its a different ball game.

Establishing standing is a rather tricky matter at times but it is a crucial requirement for a functional judicial system.

Ya missed it again.

Missed what? That [other] questions of Constitutionality are moot until standing (actual actions, past or imminently pending, with measurable impact on the party bringing suit) is established, for ALL court cases?

I've got that but it really sounds like you are disagreeing with that, are you disputing my assertion embedded with the rhetorical question above, or not?

The filer still has show that there really is an action, or that it is imminent, and that it matters [to them]. Your words seemed to imply that was not the case. There is indeed a burden of proof on the person bringing the lawsuit.

You are still thinking traditional lawsuit, We are not talking about lawsuit, we are talking about constitutional challenge. Its a different ball game.

Priceless, you'll take the time to type up a response but refuses to answer a simple question to clarify yourself. What's wrong, you'd rather not choke down that crow about those absurd prior posts of yours? LOL

In a recent months I found myself stop paying for services of US based companies unless I can ensure my own data is encrypted before it reaches US borders.

That is probably not sufficient; you want to be sure your data is encrypted in transit, to anywhere and everywhere.

Even if your chosen service provider is entirely aboveboard and cooperating in no way with US spy agencies, they have taps on many (most?) major backbones. You should assume that anything you send to anyone will be intercepted by the US, so make sure they can't use that information by encrypting it in transit.

This will not help if your service provider rolls over for the US or for Britain. Remember that, with Echelon, the US would surveil British citizens, and the Brits would surveil US citizens, and then they'd swap data. So you don't want to use providers in either country, because they can be leaned on to an extraordinary degree.

US and British servers are not safe; transit lines everywhere are not safe. Structure your online life accordingly.

I'd really like to see a story and discussion on just how to do this. I know some use VPNs. I know some use proxies and Tor. I know burn phones are used. I know encryption, for traffic and email, is used. I'd just like to know how they all work, what combination provides the highest level of privacy and if there are better ways for obtaining privacy I haven't heard of.

Priceless, you'll take the time to type up a response but refuses to answer a simple question to clarify yourself. What's wrong, you'd rather not choke down that crow about those absurd prior posts of yours? LOL

Stick a fork in you, because you are done.

No, not at all, just tired of replying to your need to argue rather than discuss and I already said it. This is something that might help you out http://www.rif.org/us/about-rif.htm

Priceless, you'll take the time to type up a response but refuses to answer a simple question to clarify yourself. What's wrong, you'd rather not choke down that crow about those absurd prior posts of yours? LOL

Stick a fork in you, because you are done.

No, not at all, just tired of replying to your need to argue rather than discuss and I already said it. This is something that might help you out http://www.rif.org/us/about-rif.htm

Again>>>>All lawsuits require demonstration of standing (proving the existence of actual actions, past or imminently impending, with material impact on legal interests of the party bringing suit) or all other questions of Constitutionality are moot and the case will be dismissed, true or false in your mind?

We can't have a discussion if you refuse to answer a straightforward question requiring a single word answer.

There is no choice when it comes to the Bill of Rights. I don't care if your personal priority is security. It cannot trump the Constitution. As a Constitutional scholar, I would expect the President to know that.

The people who Bush and Obama have truly jeopardized are future legislators, judges, journalists and industry leaders.

It is J. Edgar Hoover's now well known "secret files" all over again, suppressing all opposition.

The surveillance Bush and Obama authorized has given the intelligence community all the secret files they need to silence any opposition to their demands and ensured a permanent rubber stamped approval to all their future requests.

In fact this may have already happened, with Obama acting against the wishes of Americans, and in the UK, Blair and Cameron acting against the wishes of the British public.

They need have committed no criminal act, only made unpopular comments, held an obsolete opinion. Maybe they supported Saddam Hussein back when he was on our side.

Why are so few members of congress outraged? I doubt many members of congress have led dull boring lives. I'm sure there is something to silence each of them, even if the threats are never spoken aloud.

If the president and congress are under control of the security services then democracy is lost. We're like the USSR or Russia, government by the KGB and ex-KGB.

Yes, a regrettably high number, but has anyone hear grandpa say, "55 million was too high, we should have turned the country into a racist police state instead."

Our generation, 2,900 die one day and all of a sudden freedom has too high a price and we abandon it.

"Even one life is too many" ?! What a bunch of cowards our generation is.

Our grandparents are rolling in their graves.

Yes we try for safety, but not at the expense of freedom.

2. I realize that in the USA people think of race as a "color of the skin" thing. But it isn't. The Rwandan genocide, hutu versus tutsi, black-on-black -- a racist war. Germany 1930s and 40s, white Christian Germans versus white Ashkenazim Germans -- a racist war.

Statements by Obama that he is observing human rights by not spying on Americans, that spying on citizens of the USA's NORAD and NATO allies is not a human rights violation depends on the assumption that only Americans are humans.

It is pure racism when Obama makes statements like that, statements logically dependent on the assertion that only Americans are humans.

I may have missed this mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but isn't this just misdirection?

Yes they don't listen to your phonecalls (I assume mainly because it'd be technically difficult to actually tap into that many lines and record that much data, then having to process all the audio would take an awful lot of computing power).

But.. they can read all of your emails, facebook, text messages and so on. And according to that statement, no one in congress had been briefed on it (lots of use of the word phonecalls, no mention of all your other communications).

Also writing as someone who lives in the UK, this becomes even more concerning: they are apparently snooping on all foreign traffic 'legally' and then providing this data to the UK to circumvent our own laws over here. I'm assuming there must be a reciprocal scheme in operation too?

I may have missed this mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but isn't this just misdirection?

Yes they don't listen to your phonecalls (I assume mainly because it'd be technically difficult to actually tap into that many lines and record that much data, then having to process all the audio would take an awful lot of computing power).

But.. they can read all of your emails, facebook, text messages and so on. And according to that statement, no one in congress had been briefed on it (lots of use of the word phonecalls, no mention of all your other communications).

Also writing as someone who lives in the UK, this becomes even more concerning: they are apparently snooping on all foreign traffic 'legally' and then providing this data to the UK to circumvent our own laws over here. I'm assuming there must be a reciprocal scheme in operation too?

Please can someone tell me I'm wrong?

Les anyone forgets Canada has similar laws as well (and probably agreement). Probably the only one we don't is Mexico.

Legal standing is required and is perfectly constitutional. Can you give me a single example of the ACLU or EFF suing over an unconstitutional program where it hasn't been damaged? As I noted, over-broad laws which violate the First Amendment can be challenged by anyone, but this program is not an example of an over-broad law.

If collecting call information from every U.S. citizen is not "over-broad" with regard to the 4th amendment, what *would* be, in your opinion?

It's not? So if I knew your name I could get your phone record by asking the phone company, right?

I meant its not private to you. Its the private property of the phone company.

I'm not sure this is correct either. Were it to become known that the phone company was selling your phone records, or say, they posted everyone's records on a publicly available ftp server, there would be a massive class action lawsuit against said phone company.

To put another way, that I give information I give the bank or the phone company in order to do business does not make that information the bank's or phone company's private property, nor are records of my transactions the private property of said business.

Your actual chat over the phone is as private as it has been because this program does not wiretap (listen in on the call).

This is by no means certain given the vast amount of data they collect.

How many millions of hours of phone audio in the US? Given that how likely is it some suit is listening on at least one half of one percent everyday? No, its not likely they are listening in on any one chat just for kicks.

I won't argue this at length, but I will make a few observations.

-- “When it comes to telephone calls: Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” the president-- continued. “That's not what this program's about.

Notice, that's not what *this program's* about.

If I had said yesterday that the US government is tracking everyone's phone calls, email and basically any digital transactions of all people in the US, I suggest that your response would be about the same. I suggest that we don't know what else the government is recording, and unless and until someone else leaks something, we won't know.

Quote:

But more importantly, if you think this is happening without warrant you need to find a leaker that will help you substantiate. Otherwise, its just tin foil hattery.

I suggest that yesterday's tin foil material is today's fact. And this is because many things people like you think hallucinations by crazies are not only not impossible, but actually happening today. The error is on your side.

But you seem to be asserting also that we have full disclosure and that the government is not collecting anything else. Not only is there no basis for assuming this, it shows that you learned nothing from the recent leaks. They already have everyone in this US under surveillance, to assert that they would not violate people's privacy in ways not yet know is simply bizarre.

It's not? So if I knew your name I could get your phone record by asking the phone company, right?

I meant its not private to you. Its the private property of the phone company.

I'm not sure this is correct either. Were it to become known that the phone company was selling your phone records, or say, they posted everyone's records on a publicly available ftp server, there would be a massive class action lawsuit against said phone company.

To put another way, that I give information I give the bank or the phone company in order to do business does not make that information the bank's or phone company's private property, nor are records of my transactions the private property of said business.

I'm familiar with the privacy notice I get once a year from various vendors of our modern lifestyle but it does not apply to meta-data with no personally identifiable info. In fact, I read in those things that they may collect "aggregate" information.

It took some boisterous opposition to get companies to go that far and it appears the next step is to pass laws for meta-data as well. As it is though, there is nothing illegal.

But you seem to be asserting also that we have full disclosure and that the government is not collecting anything else. Not only is there no basis for assuming this, it shows that you learned nothing from the recent leaks. They already have everyone in this US under surveillance, to assert that they would not violate people's privacy in ways not yet know is simply bizarre.

I am satisfied there is nothing illegal going on with this particular program. This is not to say there are no serious wrong doings but the "revelation" of this program is certainly not alarm to think the worse. In fact, if you remember the Bush/Cheney years on this very matter, you should be heartened to see such good progress in terms of checks and balances.

Do you even know what surveillance is? Just do the math as a sanity check for half of what you are asserting.

Given security, privacy, and inconvenience as tradeoffs, I would keep "convenience" and let them spy on me as long as it doesn't bother me. I really don't like being blown up by bombs. I know a lot of people will vote "down" on this, but I'm not trolling, I actually feel that way.

Ask yourself two questions. In the last 30 years how many people have been killed by a "terrorist" bomb in the United States? Then ask yourself a second question. How many people have been killed by a drunk driver or some other person being negligent behind the wheel of a car?

You feel that way because you're ignorant. Your ignorance has no ability to deny me my fundamental human right protected by the US Constitution. Your foolhardy beliefs that since you have no problem with your human rights being violated it should be okay are wrong. You're wrong. You want to have a false sense of security that's fine, but stop voting for people that violate my rights because you're to ignorant to see the bigger picture. Your emotions are clouding your ability to think clearly, if that's even possible.

1) 32002) I don't know

It's fine to disagree, but please don't call me ignorant. I'm well educated and very aware of current events and know the constitution well. I placed my comment respectfully, and you can disagree respectfully without name calling.

I'm familiar with the privacy notice I get once a year from various vendors of our modern lifestyle but it does not apply to meta-data with no personally identifiable info. In fact, I read in those things that they may collect "aggregate" information.

-- The only type of information acquired under the Court’s order is telephony metadata, such-- as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.

So you think a record of all the calls you made, including your telephone number is or can be anonymous just because it does not have your name on it? I guess we will just have to disagree about this.

Quote:

It took some boisterous opposition to get companies to go that far and it appears the next step is to pass laws for meta-data as well. As it is though, there is nothing illegal.

Before Lincoln, slavery was not illegal. Personally I don't think that you can actually determine right or wrong if what you go by is 'legal' and 'illegal'.

But you seem to be asserting also that we have full disclosure and that the government is not collecting anything else. Not only is there no basis for assuming this, it shows that you learned nothing from the recent leaks. They already have everyone in this US under surveillance, to assert that they would not violate people's privacy in ways not yet know is simply bizarre.

I am satisfied there is nothing illegal going on with this particular program.

I'm satisfied that this is irrelevant even if true. And the Federal government has been shown to break it's own laws numerous time, and many of the laws congress has passed have eventually been deemed by the SC to be unconstitutional. So I won't blindly assume that what they do is legal just because they say it is. Absolutely nothing they claim can be verified, it's all hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

Quote:

This is not to say there are no serious wrong doings but the "revelation" of this program is certainly not alarm to think the worse. In fact, if you remember the Bush/Cheney years on this very matter, you should be heartened to see such good progress in terms of checks and balances.

I don't see any checks and balances here. What I see a whistleblower who revealed selected information based upon the desire to not put anyone in harms way. What this means is that there is more unrevealed. How much we don't know. How alarming, we also don't know that. But we do know that there is more.

But you seem to be asserting also that we have full disclosure and that the government is not collecting anything else. Not only is there no basis for assuming this, it shows that you learned nothing from the recent leaks. They already have everyone in this US under surveillance, to assert that they would not violate people's privacy in ways not yet know is simply bizarre.

I am satisfied there is nothing illegal going on with this particular program.

I'm satisfied that this is irrelevant even if true. And the Federal government has been shown to break it's own laws numerous time, and many of the laws congress has passed have eventually been deemed by the SC to be unconstitutional. So I won't blindly assume that what they do is legal just because they say it is. Absolutely nothing they claim can be verified, it's all hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

Lots of elected officials are satisfied everything is square dealin' with this particular program (finally, a display of bipartisanship from them ). You can say they are nincompoops but, well, you voted for them.

Lots of elected officials are satisfied everything is square dealin' with this particular program (finally, a display of bipartisanship from them ). You can say they are nincompoops but, well, you voted for them.

What makes you think I voted for them? For every election, there's a winner and 1 or more losers. Many vote for the party that did not win.

But I don't see that as relevant either, they are supposed to represent their constituents (whether they voted for them or not), not other parties interests above their constituents.

Lots of elected officials are satisfied everything is square dealin' with this particular program (finally, a display of bipartisanship from them). You can say they are nincompoops but, well, you voted for them.

What makes you think I voted for them? For every election, there's a winner and 1 or more losers. Many vote for the party that did not win.

But I don't see that as relevant either, they are supposed to represent their constituents (whether they voted for them or not), not other parties interests above their constituents.

Its relevant because elected officials gave this program a pass. And like election results, you have to accept it or go to the Supreme Court if you don't like it. (these can all be traced back to Bush v Gore, the gift that keeps on giving)

"the right balance"Right... just so long as nobody spies on, or even so much as investigates, the US government. Because then you bring the full weight of the law, the army, the CIA, the FBI, and the BogeyMan on them.

I mean, it's not like they're entitled to that info right? Clearly, you are the right person to spy on everyone.